Guilty Via Media: Is Media Liable For Kangaroo Justice?

[Skylar]

Don't be shocked when none of the retarded suggestions made in the OP come to pass.

Has it ever? Sil's record of predicting legal outcomes is one of perfect failure.

 

[hoosier88]

Point is this doesn't have to be filed by the KY Rep. It could be filed by anyone tried in the media unfairly.

Seriously? From beyond the grave? That would be an excellent trick. Even Houdini didn't manage it, TMK. Could anyone file against the media? Certainly, if they have standing. & they'd best come to court with competent counsel & real charges to file against specific persons &/or corporations. Their reception otherwise could be boisterous, to say the least.

 

[hoosier88]

If that is said as an allegation over & over & over while the accused protests get unequal air time or are presented in such a way that they're ridiculed then the net result is that the public perceives the allegations "as true" before the trial. From there, the real actual punishment of career, marriage & image ruination takes place.

So how is that not trial by media?

I'll tell you: I follow the news, @ the World & national levels, & state, regional & local. Mostly print, I only flip on the 24/7 nets' to see what the shouting is about on any given day, & don't spend much time there. I'd never heard of Rep. Johnson & his history, his foibles, the accusations of sexual misconduct against him. Even now, I've only ever heard of him because I glance through the board & this one caught my eye.

So there: prima facie evidence, whatever it was that drove him to suicide, it wasn't trial by media - @ least, not as far as I'm concerned. & I doubt, if you were to poll a few hundred random people in cities across the US, that most people would have ever heard of Johnson nor this incident.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Ah, but you are a rare example. Read below about mass-media vs more private discussions and the nuances of USSC Opinion on this balance..

So reining themselves in from a de facto public kangaroo court resulting in this suicide is "devastating effect on free speech"? Well I guess the gloves are off and the challenge is on. Are you afraid of the USSC reviewing our disagreement and coming up with a compromise verdict that protects both freedom of the press and the accused?

There is no 'de facto kangaroo court'. You've imagined it....Your proposal would hold people liable for defamation for what they *didn't* say. Not the accuracy of what they did. That's a horrid standard, as its uselessly subjective as its based solely on what any other person 'feels' they 'shoulda' said....It would have people like you buried under tort suits in months. As remember.....any changes you make to defamation would apply to ALL free speech. Not merely the speech of the 'media'.

No, it would apply to major media outlets, if written properly, who quickly and effectively dispense their stories to 100s of millions through all corners of media attention, daily alerts on iPhones and the like. Meanwhile more private discussions like this board for instance, don't get broadcasted everywhere. It would be an intricate written Opinion if the USSC Justices are earning their salary.

BTW, I don't think the widow of the KY Rep. imagined the suicide of her husband, do you?

 

[edthecynic]

Seriously? From beyond the grave? That would be an excellent trick. Even Houdini didn't manage it

Well, Pope Dan Johnson said he raised people from the dead, so why can't he raise himself from the dead?????

 

[Skylar]

^^ Ah, but you are a rare example. Read below about mass-media vs more private discussions and the nuances of USSC Opinion on this balance..

So reining themselves in from a de facto public kangaroo court resulting in this suicide is "devastating effect on free speech"? Well I guess the gloves are off and the challenge is on. Are you afraid of the USSC reviewing our disagreement and coming up with a compromise verdict that protects both freedom of the press and the accused?

There is no 'de facto kangaroo court'. You've imagined it....Your proposal would hold people liable for defamation for what they *didn't* say. Not the accuracy of what they did. That's a horrid standard, as its uselessly subjective as its based solely on what any other person 'feels' they 'shoulda' said....It would have people like you buried under tort suits in months. As remember.....any changes you make to defamation would apply to ALL free speech. Not merely the speech of the 'media'.

No, it would apply to major media outlets, if written properly, who quickly and effectively dispense their stories through all corners of media attention, daily alerts on iPhones and the like. Meanwhile more private discussions like this board for instance, don't get broadcasted everywhere. It would be an intricate written Opinion if the USSC Justices are earning their salary.

'If written properly' being the key, truck sized hole. You're holding people responsible for what they *didn't* say. Not the accuracy of what they did. And written 'properly' is a uselessly subjective standard. As its based entirely on feeling.

As I said, you'd be buried under suits in months if that standard were made law. As you don't 'write properly' by your own standards. And any modification to defamation would apply to all speech. Not simply the 'major media outlets' as you imagine.

You simply haven't thought this through.

 

[hoosier88]

...

...

But you're neglecting on purpose to see that the repetition and the way coverage is lopsided against the accused (unless they're a democrat, the media's favorite) is DE FACTO an assertion of truth before the facts are tried. Not an assertion of an allegation. An assertion of truth. See the difference? I know you do.

...

This suit would be different. It would encompass the cumulative effect of what the left-media does to people in its targets for elimination from power. They do this so they can sway the public against conservativism in general by these random whippings and "asserting as fact" mere allegations. And all with the ultimate goal of seizing full control of power, and through that the agenda of training up new generations with new policy they make and so forth so that conservative values become extinct.

The concentration of mass media in the US is a real concern. The print media are dwindling, the massive 24/7 nets' are corporate - Fox, CBS, Disney & whatever faceless minions stand behind them. The DNC doesn't own a one, Fox has sworn fealty (judging by their coverage) to all things rabid GOP.

Yah, conservative values are in danger of becoming extinct. The damage, however, is self-inflicted. I think after the long interregnum after FDR & Truman, & then after Nixon & W - the political Right in the US decided to adopt scorched-earth tactics. They're effective in the short term; in the long run, I don't think you can actually govern with those. We'll see, soon enough.

 

[hoosier88]

If you cannot prove the cited material, then you should not be citing it.

No, that's the function of the courts. Reporting is a different & separate function. For instance, when Pres. Reagan was shot, the press all ballyhooed that he was fine, everything was OK, & so on. They all lied - Reagan's life was touch & go for days, as I recall. But in order not to worry us, nor embolden our enemies to do something rash in hopes that we'd be too busy to counter, White House handlers issued Scheiss.

Did anyone file suit against the press then?​

 

[Skylar]

If you cannot prove the cited material, then you should not be citing it.

No, that's the function of the courts. Reporting is a different & separate function. For instance, when Pres. Reagan was shot, the press all ballyhooed that he was fine, everything was OK, & so on. They all lied - Reagan's life was touch & go for days, as I recall. But in order not to worry us, nor embolden our enemies to do something rash in hopes that we'd be too busy to counter, White House handlers issued Scheiss.

Did anyone file suit against the press then?​

I didn't say that.

That was Darkwind. But when pressed on what his standard *actually* was, DW insisted that the media should be held liable for what they *didn't* say about Moore. Not what they did.

 

[bendog]

I have difficulty believing Franken could place a comforting hand on a woman's back without first noticing she didn't have any shirt covering her back. (-:

 

[hoosier88]

If you cannot prove the cited material, then you should not be citing it.

No, that's the function of the courts. Reporting is a different & separate function. For instance, when Pres. Reagan was shot, the press all ballyhooed that he was fine, everything was OK, & so on. They all lied - Reagan's life was touch & go for days, as I recall. But in order not to worry us, nor embolden our enemies to do something rash in hopes that we'd be too busy to counter, White House handlers issued Scheiss.

Did anyone file suit against the press then?​

I didn't say that.

That was Darkwind. But when pressed on what his standard *actually* was, DW insisted that the media should be held liable for what they *didn't* say about Moore. Not what they did.

Yah, sorry, my bad. I'm trying to edit down all the quotes - I don't need/want the entire history, just what I'm responding to.

 

[bendog]

We allegedly enforce the journalistic standard of saying "alleged" to avoid lawsuits and have for decades. But alleged does not always cover the truth. When reporting an allegation, the media can cover themselves by stating that there is no concrete evidence to support that accusation but that some have come forward with allegations of.....You see how that works? Then, if the allegations are proven, they can change to something like....evidence suggest that the allegations against Mr. X hold some merit and investigtors are working on uncovering more information. Meanwhile, county officals are looking into what can be done.......This provides people the opportunity to make their own choices without the political sway......As it was, on MSNBC, CNN, CNBC, ABC, CBS...people were talking about sexual allegations and made no mention of any proof and often did not even use the word alleged. They just started talking about these people as if they were already convicted of the crime......If you don't think that affects how the casual watcher/listener view the issue, or if you think that it is not done deliberately to sway opinion, then you and I have nothing more to talk about......Or do you think it is perfectly okay to have someone accuse someone of rape, discover that later it turned out to be a lie, and just run a retraction and nothing is done about the false accuser and the person accused of rape now has no life at all? Or do you think the accuser should face serious jail time/

Thank you.

Sil....such a standard would have you in jail in weeks. As it would imprison you for what you *didn't* say.....but someone, anyone, feels you should have.

You, like Darkwind, are arguing for your own incarceration.

Rejecting your imaginary standards is protecting you both.

I think the media was very clear that Moore was accused of being a pervert though not officially convicted of it. His horse sure didn't look like it liked him either.

 

[Syriusly]

^^ Ah, but you are a rare example. Read below about mass-media vs more private discussions and the nuances of USSC Opinion on this balance..

So reining themselves in from a de facto public kangaroo court resulting in this suicide is "devastating effect on free speech"? Well I guess the gloves are off and the challenge is on. Are you afraid of the USSC reviewing our disagreement and coming up with a compromise verdict that protects both freedom of the press and the accused?

There is no 'de facto kangaroo court'. You've imagined it....Your proposal would hold people liable for defamation for what they *didn't* say. Not the accuracy of what they did. That's a horrid standard, as its uselessly subjective as its based solely on what any other person 'feels' they 'shoulda' said....It would have people like you buried under tort suits in months. As remember.....any changes you make to defamation would apply to ALL free speech. Not merely the speech of the 'media'.

No, it would apply to major media outlets, if written properly, who quickly and effectively dispense their stories through all corners of media attention, daily alerts on iPhones and the like. Meanwhile more private discussions like this board for instance, don't get broadcasted everywhere. It would be an intricate written Opinion if the USSC Justices are earning their salary.

You simply haven't thought this through.

That could simply be the rote reply to all of Silhouette's posts.

What Silhouette is calling for is just a back door repeal of the First Amendment

 

[Skylar]

^^ Ah, but you are a rare example. Read below about mass-media vs more private discussions and the nuances of USSC Opinion on this balance..

So reining themselves in from a de facto public kangaroo court resulting in this suicide is "devastating effect on free speech"? Well I guess the gloves are off and the challenge is on. Are you afraid of the USSC reviewing our disagreement and coming up with a compromise verdict that protects both freedom of the press and the accused?

There is no 'de facto kangaroo court'. You've imagined it....Your proposal would hold people liable for defamation for what they *didn't* say. Not the accuracy of what they did. That's a horrid standard, as its uselessly subjective as its based solely on what any other person 'feels' they 'shoulda' said....It would have people like you buried under tort suits in months. As remember.....any changes you make to defamation would apply to ALL free speech. Not merely the speech of the 'media'.

No, it would apply to major media outlets, if written properly, who quickly and effectively dispense their stories through all corners of media attention, daily alerts on iPhones and the like. Meanwhile more private discussions like this board for instance, don't get broadcasted everywhere. It would be an intricate written Opinion if the USSC Justices are earning their salary.

You simply haven't thought this through.

That could simply be the rote reply to all of Silhouette's posts.

What Silhouette is calling for is just a back door repeal of the First Amendment

Pretty much. As you'd be held liable for what you *didn't* say.......and the feelings of anyone who hears you is evidence of your guilt.

What SIl fails to recognize is that she'd be holding the knife by the blade. And such a standard would cut her to the bone.

 

[Syriusly]

^^ Ah, but you are a rare example. Read below about mass-media vs more private discussions and the nuances of USSC Opinion on this balance..

So reining themselves in from a de facto public kangaroo court resulting in this suicide is "devastating effect on free speech"? Well I guess the gloves are off and the challenge is on. Are you afraid of the USSC reviewing our disagreement and coming up with a compromise verdict that protects both freedom of the press and the accused?

There is no 'de facto kangaroo court'. You've imagined it....Your proposal would hold people liable for defamation for what they *didn't* say. Not the accuracy of what they did. That's a horrid standard, as its uselessly subjective as its based solely on what any other person 'feels' they 'shoulda' said....It would have people like you buried under tort suits in months. As remember.....any changes you make to defamation would apply to ALL free speech. Not merely the speech of the 'media'.

No, it would apply to major media outlets, if written properly, who quickly and effectively dispense their stories through all corners of media attention, daily alerts on iPhones and the like. Meanwhile more private discussions like this board for instance, don't get broadcasted everywhere. It would be an intricate written Opinion if the USSC Justices are earning their salary.

You simply haven't thought this through.

That could simply be the rote reply to all of Silhouette's posts.

What Silhouette is calling for is just a back door repeal of the First Amendment

Pretty much. As you'd be held liable for what you *didn't* say.......and the feelings of anyone who hears you is evidence of your guilt.

What SIl fails to recognize is that she'd be holding the knife by the blade. And such a standard would cut her to the bone.

Timely article- which is spot on

How Defamation Laws In Australia Could Stop An All-Out ‘Weinstein Moment’ | HuffPost

Legal experts say that Australia’s defamation laws, which are far stricter than those in the United States, and Australia’s lack of a constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech mean that a Weinstein-level moment of reckoning is less likely to occur.


Journalists in Australia are forced to be far more cautious to avoid being sued and may be reluctant to report similar stories in their own backyard, said professor David Rolph of the University of Sydney Law School.


“It is fairly notorious that defamation law in Australia has a chilling effect on investigative journalism and reporting more generally. It’s something that inhibits reporting,” he told HuffPost, adding, “The risks of defaming someone are higher.”


The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment provides a level of protection for the media that Australians don’t have, Rolph said. In particular, he pointed to the “public figure” doctrine in the U.S., which requires plaintiffs who are prominent individuals to prove that a report was both false and published with “actual malice.” By contrast, he said, Australia’s system is “pro-plaintiff.”


“The U.S. has the defamation laws most protective of free speech in the common law world, which opens up the scope of reporting and journalism,” Rolph explained. “In Australia, the plaintiff doesn’t have to prove [the allegation] is false; the defendant has to prove it is true.”

 

[Silhouette]

The concentration of mass media in the US is a real concern. The print media are dwindling, the massive 24/7 nets' are corporate - Fox, CBS, Disney & whatever faceless minions stand behind them. The DNC doesn't own a one, Fox has sworn fealty (judging by their coverage) to all things rabid GOP.

Yah, conservative values are in danger of becoming extinct. The damage, however, is self-inflicted. I think after the long interregnum after FDR & Truman, & then after Nixon & W - the political Right in the US decided to adopt scorched-earth tactics. They're effective in the short term; in the long run, I don't think you can actually govern with those. We'll see, soon enough.

Well put.

 

[hoosier88]

The concentration of mass media in the US is a real concern. The print media are dwindling, the massive 24/7 nets' are corporate - Fox, CBS, Disney & whatever faceless minions stand behind them. The DNC doesn't own a one, Fox has sworn fealty (judging by their coverage) to all things rabid GOP.

Yah, conservative values are in danger of becoming extinct. The damage, however, is self-inflicted. I think after the long interregnum after FDR & Truman, & then after Nixon & W - the political Right in the US decided to adopt scorched-earth tactics. They're effective in the short term; in the long run, I don't think you can actually govern with those. We'll see, soon enough.

Well put.

Thanks. I think it's a shame that both major parties have consumed their moderates in the political fires since Goldwater. Things got ugly during FDR's terms, but I think we'd gotten back to some civility by the time JFK ran & won. Somehow, TV coverage - & the race to the bottom epitomized in sound bites - has been the death of serious candidates. Now it's polling, all the time, even when that's the last thing that the voters need to hear. The question is: Where will the current race to the center of the Earth end? & what kind of political/government process will we (the survivors) have once we've crashed to a halt (& buried the dead, & bound up the wounds)?

 

[DJT for Life]

Interesting take at the Boston Globe. They are on record that they will
and have been transparent on releasing the names of people accused
of sexual abuse/assault.

One of their reporters was accused. They refused to release his/her name
citing confidentiality policies.

 

[Silhouette]

Well the political spectrum is being dragged far left. There soon won't be any true conservatives left. And of course the cult of the devil wants it that way because conservativism means restraint. And restraint is the opposite of evil.

 

[Syriusly]

Well the political spectrum is being dragged far left.

LOL- you are even more delusional than I thought.